Jiri's Blog

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

In my mother tongue, there is a word with a revealing etymology. The adjective "pitomý (-á, -é)" translates as "stupid", "obtuse", "insipid". In the old Slavonic, the word "pitati" meant "to feed", and gave rise to the Czech adjective whose original meaning was "well-fed" or "sated". From there it migrated to the modern meaning most likely on the observation that people who have no want tend to become dull-witted by the same token. Interesting. I tend to agree and believe that statistically this would bear out. I observe that if you live in peace and prosperity your hunger for both diminishes as a function of actually living in a peaceful and prosperous society. After a while, it becomes hard to imagine anything but the reality of your comfort. This intensifies the dullness in the perception of the world that convinces many of the well-fed that there is no immediate danger to us from some people cutting heads of other people in the Middle East and parts of Africa. There is no danger coming from jihadis at all and they will be nice like us, if only we feed them and then leave them alone. There is no danger of their atrocities materializing here (we are all well fed !) so we will not be intimidated into reducing immigration from the head-cutting regions of globe. Many in the Western intellectual elite live with the I-am-ok-Jack syndrome and not all them are necessarily overweight like Michael Moore.

An example of classical pitomost (a noun derived from pitomý) comes in Andrew Coyne's last week's column in National Post (The case for watching our words on Islamism, 21/2/2015), in which he muses over the different take on the Islamic terror by Stephen Harper and Barack Obama. Well, muses probably is not the right verb. Fiddles, would describe it better. The foolishness of Coyne's rhetorical exercise makes itself felt almost immediately. Says he: There are, it would seem, three questions to be answered: what is in fact the relationship, if any, between Islam and terrorism; what do authorities believe is the relationship; and what do they say they believe. The peculiar insistence on the right that politicians insert the word “Islamic” before “terrorism” would appear to stem from a belief that anything else is an abdication from the “truth,” that there is “something about Islam” that explains the proliferation of terrorist groups claiming to act in its name. No, actually there is only one question. If the Obama administration does not think there is any link between terrorism and Islam why did it accord the corpse of Osama bin Laden, the mass murderer of Americans, the right to be buried according to the Islamic tradition ? It would appear to someone not in the habit to twist truth into ideological pretzels there most definitely is a connection between Islam and terrorism, or Islam and a universalist, supremacist ideology. I wager that nine out of ten Canadians and Americans would agree with that proposition, even though many in the same breath would repeat the established bromide that most Muslims are not terrorists or approve of terrorist methods. But the problem of course is that many Muslims while not approving of terrorism in fact desire a global Islamic society and support political organizations and social networks whose goals are overtly or covertly to establish a world Islamist rule over Non-muslims. The terrorism of such ambition - as I wrote before - is implied. Not to see this, or pretending that this ideology does not exist is of course willful blindnessborne of what I called here pitomost.

It is in the lack of discernment that would deny the hulking political ideology of Islamism that makes naifs like Andrew Coyne a truly sad sight of our time. He expounds the silly deconstructionist argument recently used by Ben Affleck (arguing with Bill Maher) that wishes to assert that Islam, as a religion, is so differentiated that one cannot really say anything that would stick as a label for the whole caboodle. This is argument is as pitomý as pitomý could get. Imagine, if you will, Coyne or Affleck saying that forty years ago about another ideology manifestly hostile to the West - communism. How could one even begin to conflate the Soviets and Maoist China, the Stalinists and the Trockyists, with the anti-Bolshevik followers of Rosa Luxemburg ? How could one compare the saintly martyrs like Antonio Gramsci and Karl Liebknecht to vicious genocidal animals of Lavrenti Beria's or Pol Pot's ilk ? Did not Lenin explicitly condemn the violent red anarchism that became the hallmark later of the Red Brigades and the Baader-Meinhof gang ? How could one say anything valid about communism that would apply to all communists ? And yet somehow the brains in the West were able to distill the essence of that ideology and its practical effects and decide thatthis is not how we want live (and have our women dress). How could that be ? With all that variety of the communist belief ? But the West did protect its culture and traditions from the red menace and it slowly died (or morphed into something much more benign, as in China).

So in truth, there is something like modern political Islamism and it sprang from the head of a single 19th century thinker, and contemporary of Karl Marx. Andrew Coyne does not know his name and by all appearances he knows nothing about his philosophy and the man's career. Andrew Coyne does not know him because he does not find his name anywhere in the tons of dimwitted columns written by, or recited on TV, by people like himself who are completely ignorant of the matters that come to bear on one of the most serious and also sadly, ridiculous, challenges our civilization faces. Andrew Coyne does not the name of this luminary (and wily mountebank) even though he was a well-known figure at the courts of Europe, and in Persia, a man that saw the potential of the Islamic world well ahead of his time and who passionately defended it in polemics against one of Europe's leading intellectuals of the day, Ernest Renan. He fought the British on the side of the Sepoy in 1857 Indian uprising, and later advised the shah on dealings with the British. His anti-British attitude recommended him to the Tsar, and he was allowed to proselytize Islam in the Russian Central Asia as a bulwark against the encroaching rival imperialism. So who was he, Andrew? More clues: He acquired a pupil who adored him, but in some ways was smarter and better positioned than his teacher, in a replica of what Friedrich Engels was to Karl Marx. The Islamist "modernizing" philosophy of his pupil, who became the Grand Mufti of Egypt created the corner stone of the political movements of the Muslim brothers in Egypt, and its first leaders Hassan Al Bannah, Sayyid Qutb, and reformers like Muhammad Rashid Rida and Abul A'la Maududi who founded the Jamaat e-Islami party in British India. The belief of the Mufti was that the old, passive religion of Islam must be converted into a modern political movement, one that can challenge and replace the Western model of government. He called it the "cutting head of religion with the sword of religion". The teacher and his pupil gave the world the term "salafiyya" which became the central piece of the modernizing Islamist philosophy, much like "the dictatorship of the proletariat" was to Marxism-Leninism.

So who were the two men ? Andrew Coyne apparently does not know but he knows it is a mistake for Mr Harper to oppose allowing quasi-religious face covering during Canadian citizenship ceremonies. He writes with a truly foolish abandon: "Merely referring to “Islamic extremism” or “jihadism” would be unobjectionable in itself. But when coupled with recent, needless interventions in such volatile debates as whether the niqab may be worn at citizenship ceremonies, it suggests at best a troubling indifference to the importance of symbols and the need for those in power to go out of their way to reassure those in minority groups that they have not been targeted." No, Andrew, you have it ass backwards ! The niqab was all but extinct two generations ago in the Islamic world, or at any rate, it would be associated with the most retrograde cultural forms of that religion. No educated, urbane Muslim two generations ago would compel his wife to wear this abominable declaration of social inferiority and denial of public identity. No self-respected Muslima, at any rate one exposed to the 20th century idea of civil society would wear one. If it made an astonishing comeback, it is because it has been tolerated not just as a statement of protest against Western values and traditions, but as a calculated provocative denying of the jurisdiction a modern secular state over Muslims. So, it goes without saying that Muslims who would deplore or berate the Prime Minister for his stance on the niqab during citizenship ceremonies, are not the kinds of Muslims willing to accept the fundamental principles of a modern multicultural society whose existence presupposes a set of common secular values respected by everyone regardless of religious faith. More to the point that I am trying to make here:`to someone who is not pitomý it would be clear as day that people who are hostile to the secular order will not be satisfied by the next concession they claw from spineles politicos via the multitude of media mudheads. To someone who is not pitomý, insisting that our cultural values be observed, including the equal status of women, will not make the Muslim community as a whole more hostile to Canada and deliver more of the peaceful Muslim flock to the terrorist wolf-packs. Bien au contraire ! Muslims not overtly or secretly favouring the caliphate would support the requirement of ladies showing their faces in public.

Sunday, February 15, 2015

No, this is not a blog entry featuring a Roger Waters (Pink Floyd ) nostalgia but a digest (sort of) of recent round tables on the future of Ottawa hockey at one of the local Tim Horton's by the city's greatest hockey experts. Yeah, the consensus is : future is bleak for Ottawa NHL franchise. Not only the Sens do not have a lot of talent on the team right now and nothing much at its farm club in Binghampton, but the club's marketing insists the team is a playoff contender which it clearly is not, and was not past the first dozen or so games in the season where it looked like maybe a contender for another early playoff knockout. And we have a consensus around the table also on the nature of the problem : it is the success of the club's owner Eugene Melnyk of making more money of a below-average hockey team in the city than off a real contender. Sad but true, this is the reality of the Ottawa hockey franchise to many frustrated fans of the club, some of whom "returned" their earlier loyalties to the Habs (and until recently the Leafs), and prefer a handful of trips out of town to get the kick out of watching a team competing with a passion for the hockey's greatest trophy. It's not as much the hockey that stinks, but the way the Sens owner uses the holy Canadian national obsession for making more money that he should off a team no-one with a brain in their head believes is as good as it could be. On this we are agreed.

It seems clear as day to all Ottawans, not feeding off the tripes of the Sun columnists Bruce Garrioch and Don Brennan, that the club has dug itself a deep hole and that there is no easy way out. Not as long as the club's owner believes what he does is not just smart business but smart hockey business. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a sports writer in the city right now ready to take on the Sens owner to task. Last time I remember reading something vaguely critical of Melnyk was Wayne Scanlan's (Ottawa Citizen) jeering in 2010 accusing the managagement of trying to sell Ottawa fans the 2007 edition of the team - then long gone. And of course, it has been all downhill from the club's only appearance in the Stanley Cup final. The bright spots are few, in fact only one marquee player , Eric Karlsson, appeared in the last half a dozen year but even he has never quite regained the shine after his 2012 injury. Only two exceptional coaches, Cory Clouston (2009-2011) and Paul MacLean (2012-2014) made the club perform well, certainly well over its talent content. Clouston, of whom it was said, that he was the only guy in the organization who truly hated losing , got the team into playoffs through dogged determination. Bryan Murray, the Sens GM, made another great catch in luring Maclean, an assistant to Mike Babcock in Detroit. The man with the walrus moustache made an instant impression in taking the team to the second round of the Cup in 2013 and winning the NHL coach of the year award. But after the club's loss of its two star forwards, one of them a shameful cold shoulder to the soul of the franchise, the beloved 'Alfie', he seems to have caught onto Eugene's way with the axe (neither Alfie nor Spezza were in any way replaced - Ryan certainly has not replaced the former captain as a leader) and the widening gulf between the Sens marketing propaganda and reality, saying he was going into games 'scared' in turn of the other teams' talent and the lack thereof on the team he coached. He was promptly axed. Like in the Spezza exchange, the replacement is without distinction. The club is predicatbly going nowhere, even though Bruce Garrioch will be quick to cheer you up by telling that Karlsson plus/minus has much improved under the new coach (who has no prior NHL experience).

So, we are a couple of weeks from a trade deadline and the word on the NHL street is that Ottawa Senators are "sellers". Again, not a word of protest against Melnyk hacking away this year. Only a year ago, when the Sens owner landed a lucrative deal with Rogers, hopes were kindled that this will lead to the replenishment of the thinning ranks of impact players. No way, Jose ! The owner is not going to raise quality of his hockey product, until (he says) the team proves it can compete (with a bunch of young guys, journeymen and minor leaguers). Hmmm.....Instead, the money would be used for a more urgent purpose: the relocation of the club closer to downtown in a grand scheme to get it closer to a casino a project which preoccupies him. It is unclear how Melnyk imagines this will enhance the revenues to offset the capital outlays, or if he is back in the fantasy land where he chases Matt Cooke through courts for hison-ice injury to Eric Karlsson. In reality terms, it only makes a good bet that the Ottawa team would get lousier and move closer in ranking to the league's payroll where Ottawa Senators already sit dead last. So obviously it is not love of hockey as a competitive game that is attracting Eugene Melnyk to his business schemes around the Canadian winter rapture. So the way it is going Eugene may well get his wish of a second NHL hockey arena in the city, but it may come with either a pathetic excuse for an NHL team or no NHL team at all. So, careful with that axe, Eugene ! Remember the Yogi Berra's great teaching (in paraphrase) : "If people want to stay away from a lousy hockey club, who can stop them ?"

Monday, January 12, 2015

In the world of competing identities some are evidently more equal than others. The really substandard ones are being white (Caucasian without being Hispanic) , male, Christian, heterosexual. In our day and age if one is found to belong to one or more of these, he or she better live in a state of permanent repentance for the ills these groupings of bad people wrought upon the world. One needs to be aware that one belongs among people who are generically racists, imperialists, patriarchal oppressors, bigots and homophobes. One needs to be aware of the righteous struggle against people like oneself by the anti-racists, anti-imperialists, Muslims, feminists, and the people who are gay-lesbians-transgender-and-whatever-new-gender-identity-this-day-brings.

One solution to the problem of owning one or more bad identities is to pose as a Liberal. In our time the good old Liberal gentleman, i.e. someone who would give you shirt off his back, has been all but replaced by the ubiquitous poseur, enthusiastically advocating the shirt should be ripped off the back of the people with bad identity profiles, in the hope that in the rush his own unseemly identities will be forgiven or redeemed by his Liberalism, or perhaps - more realistically - that the crocodile will devour him last.

In this light, I read the "Je suis Charlie" mania gripping France as by and large a toothless form of jacquerie designed by people who for most part are latter day Liberals. They are folks who are like Anglicans, as a tough nun in Somerset C. Maugham novel "Painted Veil" sized them up, people who don't "believe in anything much". Over three million copies of the post-massacre issue of Charlie Hendo were printed, as a memento of a mass protest where all France showed up to condemn the two massacres in Paris in the first week of the New Year. Alas, the placards it seemed celebrated multiple identities. It was more or less a given among the attendees that "Je suis musulman" meant "je ne suis pas ce genre de musulman", that is to admit the confession of the Algerian brothers who were buried in unmarked graves somewhere around Reims to prevent pilgrimages to honour the martyrs for the cause of a 7th century Islam dominating the modern world. This is a naive mindset clinging to a fairy tale of a multicultural panacea, built on the desperate hope that rats will be comrades and worshipping the "four legs good - two legs bad" motto of identity politics.

This is not to say that a truly multicultural society is impossible or undesirable; it is simply to say that it cannot be built without a deep respect for the founding principles of a civil society, which distasteful as it may seem to the revolutionary, radical types, was initially built precisely by the collection of "bad" identities named above in the first paragraph. What these identities have in common is that they are on the whole way more tolerant than the antithetical ones which deplore and badmouth them vociferously. They were not always that way in history, but they appear to be the ones most capable of reform because they - on the whole again - understand societies are evolving and accepting that even their advanced degree of civil edifice is not without fault. That kind of insight does not exist among those who naturally assume that admitting one's fallibility means vacating the high moral ground. Also, people worshipping identity politics - and this is again my private observation without statistics to confirm - are generally much less likely seeing the bigger picture and cultivate a healthy sense of humour. I have convinced myself that G.K. Chesterton was right in saying that the maturity of a religion is measured by its sense of humour. I am sure this is true also of secular ideologies. Chesterton was a Catholic who said that his confession was superior to all the other forms of Christianity because it admitted all types of faith, even the respectable one.

Humour assumes the ability to defeat anger by insight. In that regard, I have to say I was never much of a fan of Charlie Hebdo. I have always found much of the political satire too close to drooling glee. But I loved the cover of the memorial issue. It was masterful irony: Muhammad 'forgiving' the insult of being lampooned. A strike of genius in the cry for humanity lost on the fanatics. Jelaluddin Rumi would see the hand of God in it, just as he saw it in the confession of an atheist.

Saturday, December 6, 2014

Yes, it happened. Strange as it may seem and completely inexplicable unless one takes the unforgettable SNL sketch of Eddie Murphy's "white experience" as guide. White people are nice to each other. They give things to each other when they are alone. Why would a white cop tackle a white male citizen peacefully walking on a sidewalk ? Freaky or not, it sometimes happens. It happened to me. It did not make any news headlines because cellphone cameras were not yet around then. Everyone knew that some among the Montreal finest were cuckoos, apt to go berserk at whatever could be construed as an excuse for assault causing bodily harm on law-abiding burghers. It was not big news even when some store camera caught a uniformed porky kicking the shit out of a citizen asking him politely (he was white which explains his stereotypical proneness to civility) to remove his cruiser which was double parked and blocking his vehicle.

My takedown, alas, was not news. I walked home from a friends' house at about midnight. Saw a police cruiser through a corner of my eye prowling alongside me for about a half of a city block. Then came a holler from the car in French. I had no idea it was meant for me. Then a door slammed and from the blind side came a vicious tackle that sent me down to the sidewalk, my head banging the pavement. Through the fog I heard something that ended like ....t'es sourd quoi (are you deaf ?). Realizing the situation I was in I decided I lost speech and comprehension completely (I never talked to Montreal cops in French out of principle). I was handcuffed and dragged to the back of the police cruiser. My ruse of pretending the head-bang incapacitated me worked. Once loaded in, the cops in front argued whether they should take me to the hospital first, the attacker turning back to me asking from time to time: "you ok ", "what happened to you", and "where do you live", evidently concerned. Again, this would be how white cops treat white males. However, the driver decided against just dropping me off because there were two couples, he said, across the street intently watching the scene. If something happened shit would hit the fan. So the charade continued. I was taken to the police station - I appeared to gather my senses - and charged with "drunken and disorderly" plus "resisting arrest". I asked for a breathalyzer test. I was not shown the result but the first charge was changed to "loitering". I was fingerprinted and mug shot was taken. It showed an ugly-looking contusion on my front temple which was cleaned after we entered. I seemed to be quiet, without affect and this evidently unnerved the police station. A shift supervisor came in and asked me what happened. I told him what happened. He asked me if I was sure that it happened that way. I told him that in my state I was not sure of anything. He asked me if I was going to complain. I told him I had a headache. With a job and an address and no prior the super decided the best way to handle this would be to take me to the hospital. In a week, I was informed by mail that the charges were dropped. No explanation, no apology. I was invited to file a complaint against "the arresting officer". I did not. You understand: I was white. How lucky to have been born white. Facial bruises look uglier. Everything in life seems so much easier if your skin lacks melatonin.

Seriously, though: I note through the incidents in Ferguson and Staten Island the absolute obsession with color in two examples of lethal use of police force. Insofar I can see the two cases are miles apart. Given what is known to be the evidence in the Mike Brown's case, the grand jury was correct not to indict Officer Wilson. Whatever the community policing in the city and in the US at large, the damning of Officer Wilson was based on evidence that was perjured as the forensics supported the account of the officer and other witnesses, mostly black. So, despite the sometimes hysterical CNN's coverage of the incident's aftermath and the racial card being played day in day out everywhere, the incident began with a grievous assault on a uniformed police officer by an unruly teenage bully. The fact that Mike Brown was black and unarmed in this case does not change anything on the fact that he acted with determined physical aggression toward the cop. A reasonable person would see this aspect of the incident as way more important than the respective racial profile of the two actors. The race in this case is a red herring, politically exploited. It only matters to people who are stupid, or who are racists projecting their racism onto people of other races. The unsung heroes of the saga were the black witnesses who told the truth to the grand jury and saved Darren Wilson from the cries for lynching the politicos and media were happily feeding into. Do not expect them to be celebrated by the US president, and yet they were not the only ones not thinking white vs. black in Ferguson. They were the only ones certifiably non-racist and sane, thinking of their community messed up by black crime out of control, not white cops response to it. They did what was right and in the face of an angry mob. They have my respect.

The Staten Island incident likewise has an unarmed black man killed by a white cop. But this is where any similarity between the tragic deaths of Mike Brown and Eric Garner end. There was no similarity in the context of the two incidents. Mike Brown was a bully. Eric Garner was not. Eric Garner refused to go with the police voluntarily. Bad mistake. He knew he was dealing with law enforcement officers. But there was not a hint of any physical aggression coming from him. Once on ground, in an illegal head-lock by Officer Daniel Pantaleo, and after his head pressed by him. Eric was clearly pleading, expressing discomfort, not resisting. It seems a classical case of excessive force even though the death was accidental, partially attributable to Eric's health condition. The excess should have been acknowledged by NYPD, and the grand jury should have ordered a trial of the officer on a charge of involuntary manslaughter. It may have been a freak one-in-a-thousand accident but it was brought about by excessive force. This is not throwing a cop under a bus. This is doing the right thing. Police officers should be respected but they are not above the law which they are sworn to uphold. I don't see the excess force against Eric Garner as an exhibit of a hostile racial animus. (This was not Rodney King's bashing. There was a black female NYPD sergeant present). I don't know of Officer Pantaleo's disciplinary history. I simply observe that tragic errors in judgment happen and they need to be acknowledged, if the police use of force is to preserve its legitimacy. The simple truth is that some people are simply unsuited to wear a uniform, whether they be white, black, whatever race or background. They are too quick to draw, too unsure of themselves, too eager to compensate by bravado, and flashing overwhelming force. Good cops know who they are and they instinctively shun them because they mean trouble as partners and backup support. And this is probably as much as one can say about the two incidents if one does not have a mealy-mouthed political agenda to push.

Saturday, November 1, 2014

Anthony
Furey (Ghomeshi not a lynch-mob victim, Ottawa Sun 1/11/2014) has a couple things right. Whatever
the former CBC radio superstar could be called, victim is not one of them. At least, not as yet. He got fired for a
cause which by now almost everyone in Canada knows, even people like me who
never heard a single Ghomeshi interview.He is suing the broadcaster or so the papers say.It is known because he has become a front-page
news because some people think his sex proclivities is a front-page material
because he is - well I have said it - a former CBC radio superstar and he was
fired because of his sexual proclivities. This naturally calls for big fat headlines
where he is lambasted as Don Jian and
cautioned to Put Your Hands Where We Can
See Them. As hyperboles go, a lynch-mob is probably too strong a word given
that the worst that will happen to Ghomeshi is that he will not be employable
in Canada in a job that has a public profile, after a media shit-storm ahead of
judicial proceedings (if any) against him materialized. At the moment, not much seems to be available
in the gossip exchange and the kinky kangaroo court that Anthony Furey feels morally
impelled to partake in.Two women
stepped forward with public accusations against the radio host.One, an actress described some of the rough
sex scenes from the first date with the radio host in 2002 but gauged them “not terrible”. Not terrible
enough at any rate for her not to agree to see him again. Two, a lawyer who
says only she was not raped but pillories generally the judicial system, saying
it has bias which prevents sex assault victims like herself to step forward
with charges. Sounds pretty self-serving if you ask me. Other than that, we don’t know except that the
business of combatting rape culture on
campuses has evidently its own contingent in the melee with Carleton U.
claiming multiple victims among its journalism students ready to step forward
and tell tales of being groped, fondled or otherwise diminished as persons by
the libertine miscreant. In the latest twist in the bizzare web of accusations, a former girlfriend of Ghomeshi complains in The Guardian of his withholding sex and thus sparing her the martyrdom of being his lover. Mistaken though you would be if you thought this was a positive and a defence of the beleaguered host. No, she found him weird and feels compelled to tell on him because she feels assured the other women told the truth and he was grooming her for later abuse. Evidently, in the minds of those disappointed with him, Jian must be guilty of something, even if nothing happened. As I hinted, I hold no brief for
Ghomeshi. I can't do more for him that I myself would feel entitled to from him, should I by any chance be treated unfairly on account of different tastes in matters sexual. I do have concern that the
complaints against his indecent outrages
against his dates, coworkers (?) themselves show lack of that very quality
which alone can claim a higher moral ground: yes, I am talking about decency. There seems to be, behind the
barrage of denunciations against the celebrity an unspoken assumption that he did criminal
things of the sort on which there should be no statutory limits, and that he
did them knowing full well what he did was out of bounds.Problem is, you need to prove this and the
high-minded Furey and his buddies at the Sunmedia (Ezra Levant, Michael
Coren)have had difficulty with that
part.I don’t care for Furey’s
description of Ghomeshi as a “self-important wanker”.It has no significance in the issues at hand.Worse, it is transparent painting of the
radio host with the intent to deny him a defense if a criminal case against him
arises. Where is the bigger picture,
Anthony Furey ?We live in a sex culture
where everything goes. Not true? Go to a
sex toy shop!See all the ball gags,
harnesses, strap-ons, nipple clamps, whips, handcuffs, bondage tape, rope,
pulleys, choking manuals ? There they are, take your pick if you are
into that! None of this is contraband, or
even, if one can use George Constanza’s memorable phrase, “frowned upon” by
anyone these days who does not fit the category of a sexual naif. The thing that seems to be missing for nearly
all the commentators (with Christie Blatchford the one honorable exception) who talk
or write about Jian Ghomeshi’s sex-capades is relevant context to make the
judgement call they are in a hurry to make. But, as many
popular indictments from Salem, Mass. to Martensville, Sask. have proven, claims of moral
certainty that his Satanic majesty was involved have been notoriously hard to
sustain. It is unseemly, almost like trying to cry hard enough at Kim Jong Il's funeral: one would not want to be suspected as one of those giving a bloody nose, fat lip or a shiner to a sex partner as regular par for the course. Listen, CBC’s self-serving
commission-of-inquiry-after-the-fact des not convince anyone. Sunmedia’s collective
glee over CBC’s battered image as a public broadcaster in Canada are not going to prove
anyone’s guilt. Ghomeshi’s political outlook is irrelevant, nor are his skills
with the mike. The tweets of support to him from Margaret Atwood are not a proof
of anything. We don't know and we will not know what really happened and this is why: whatever comes out now against
the host has been tainted by a process in which a silent but diligent character
assassination preceded an objective investigation, and the firing of the man by
the broadcaster preceded evidence of any wrongdoing that was produced.If there was “graphic” evidence of violent, non-consensual
sex, it should have been handled by the police first.That much decency for Jian Ghomeshi was certainly not that much to ask for.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

Justin
Trudeau has the good looks of his mother and her genes evidently dominate also in setting limits to
his cranial capacity. In the best
imitation of his dad’s stern face with which he announced the War Measures Act
in Quebec 1970, Justin attempted to give vent to his outrage at the murders of
the two soldiers that shook Canada last week.Problem is Pierre Elliott’s anger was not staged; his contempt for the miscreants oozed
through the pores of his skin. You did not want to get on the wrong side of this guy. His defiant resolve spoke loud and clear.This was terror and intimidation and the democratic
society which his government represented would defend itself with all that was
at its disposal. The speech is a classic and though I was not always on side
with Trudeau’s politics, I admired his guts and the ability to inspire.In contrast, the most charitable way to
describe Justin's speech is that he was simply lost in the word-salad handed to him.The circumstances of
Justin’s speech as the leader of the Liberals were similar, not the same as in his dad's speech, but
enough to draw significant parallels. Like the October 1970 kidnapping of Pierre Laporte (who was later murdered) and James Cross, the killings this month were a deliberate assault on the
country’s sovereign powers and symbols.The political source of the action was known.State functionaries and the base principles on
which the country operates were attacked.Unlike 1970, where the aim of domestic terrorism was simply to force a
showdown in a constituent part of the Confederation, the command
structure behind the attackers last week is obscured. However, there cannot be a reasonable
doubt about the motive of the actions in both instances, and their aim, in
which they succeeded, to hit in a random fashion the symbols of Canadian
state and thereby strike terror into the hearts of Canadians. (If you do not agree that the attacks had the desired effect, consider the order for the military in the wake of the incidents to restrict wearing of military uniforms, which of course means, the military has been intimidated by the attacks and believes that "hiding" the military men and women in civilian garb reduces the chances they would be attacked. This is as silly and demeaning as would be a recommendation that women wear hijabs and ankle-length dresses in response to a sexual assault on a couple of teenagers by Muslim fanatics enraged by their immodest attire). The first thing to note about Justin’s speech is
that the word “terror” or “terrorism”, let alone “Islamic terror(ism)” are missing in action.Trudeau speaks of “intimidation”
by the killers who are described as “criminals” and “perpetrators”. Evidently,
and this is where the strange part begins, Trudeau believes and considers
important to tell us that they want to “shake us” and “want us to forget
ourselves”.Forget what ?Selon Justin, the reason for the attacks was to make us forget
that: We are a proud democracy, a welcoming and peaceful nation, and a country
of open arms and open hearts. We are a nation of fairness, justice, and the
rule of law.Really?Could
fooled me!Silly old fool, I thought that the
idea was to intimidate Canada into withdrawing its support of the US in an
airborne military assault on a bunch of degenrate killers calling themselves Islamic State. Isn’t that why the targets were specifically uniformed
soldiers, Mr. Trudeau?Apparently we
cannot say Islamic State and it could
not have been on account of our planes in Kuwait because the Liberal Party does
not support whipping outourCF-18’s in
response to depraved slaughter and enslavement of whole populations on a territory larger than Great Britain. We only do humanitarian things. So, it cannot be that they want to intimidate
the Conservative government into changing its policy of support of the US military action.Or can it? Well, if Mr. Trudeau wanted to say
that he botched it completely.But I don’t
think the leader of the Liberals wanted to go there. The thrust of his ideas, insofar as they
have any coherence at all, seems to be that the Grits will not be “intimidated”
into changing their view of the Muslim communities in Canada and on immigration.
Again, one has to question the sanity
of the remarks. If anything is obvious about the motive of the assailants then
it is that they would be only too happy with Mr. Trudeau who does not know (or
pretends not to know) what Wahhabism is. (Watch this excellent documentary on Wahhabism in Britain from 2007 !)The last thing they would want to do is to intimidate him and the likes of him into changing their view of the mosques
they visit and where they make their political alliances.This is the gist of the matter: most people who
have actually looked into the problem of the radicalization of Muslim youth (and
who are not part of that problem) tell us that it does not happen in isolation.It’s not just internet but a clandestine
network of contacts made typically through mosques.The Big Bad Lone Wolf narrative is
essentially false. It denies that there are vital elements in the process which
are formed, as a rule, through personal, face-to-face, contacts and these contacts
are made mostly at mosques. It is foolish to believe that people ready to
sacrifice themselves in the name of a death cult would not make themselves
known to other members of the cult and seek their approval. This narrative is simply designed to provide
blanket protection of mosques, regardless of their true colour with respect to
radicalism.It promotes the myth of “self-radicalization”
No-one self-radicalizes, says Andrew McCarthy.
We need to address the problem of mosques financed by foreign donations or ones
which have foreign-trained imams, and ones who have known hostile disposition to
the basic civil make-up of the country.Often they like to present themselves as agents of de-radicalization.
But that too is often simply a smoke-screen to win exemption from scrutiny of our
National Security agencies. Surveillance of mosques with known or suspected tie
to radical Islamist ideas is of utmost importance. The kerfuffle with the RCMP withdrawing its support from the anti-terror booklet by an Islamist group with ties to Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood is a case in point. We cannot have foxes in charge of the henhouse if we don't want to lose chickens. As I have written previously, it is not
difficult to detect Islamist ideology in presentations and communications by
Muslim groups and organizations. The test of moderate Muslim faith (or any other faith FTM), acceptable
to the community at large in a country like Canada is very simple. What we cannot afford here are naïve, foolhardy leaders
having a bloodthirsty beast staring them in the face and their response to manifest evil is making poses and saying things that make no sense at all.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

I
consider Tarek Fatah one of the good guys and a handy one to have around. When
someone tells me there are no truly moderate Muslims I usually ask if they read
Tarek Fatah’s book Chasing a Mirage. They
will say, no, and the argument will then end up going somewhere else.Evidently, there are Muslims in the West who
are quite happy with the Western secularist society and value its civility over
the Islamist medievalist mindset that now dominates the OIC and most of the
social and cultural setting of the countries where Muslims are a majority. That
quite apart from the most virulent strands of jihadism that have now flooded the Web and social
media and thereby acquired global following.That there are few Muslims like Tarek Fatah is a problem but not one he
and those like him can do much more about than what they are already doing, ie.
putting their finger on the backwardness and nasty nature of the politicized
version of their faith.So far so good. Unfortunately, it appears Mr. Fatah has a
different ideological hobby-horse, one that comes from his affiliation with the
Left.The Left has traditionally tried
to push social agenda, which is ok, and push with it methods of accelerating
the project of social justice which, as a rule, is not ok. It is not ok because the perception of what is
socially just comes often mixed with appetite for crude revenge
against those who stand, or appear to stand, in the way of progress. Often this appetite is not altogether self-conscious but it is there and palpable if you just happen to be on the wrong
side of the nomenclatura. On top of the
list is the ubiquitous charge of racism.

Mr. Fatah’s take seems somewhat watered down
but nonetheless I take issue with it.He
tries hard to avoid the term racist and racism, and even condescends to
admit that some anti-racist people are
white.But, he maintains white privilege exists, and claims to
have evidence for it.He points as an
example to the case of a white lesbian couple where one of the women was
impregnated by mistake by a black man’s sperm and which is now suing the lab
for a pile of money.It is not clear
immediately where the privilege comes
into play in the couple insisting they have been injured by the error. The other
examples have to do with the amount of news coverage that the ISIS and Boko
Haram beheadings of non-white people, compared to that of Americans and
Brits.Again, Mr. Fatah’s perception
that this to do with the privilege of
whites seems hopelessly tangential. He
argues white racism but does not want to admit it. So he misuses a narrower term
used for maintaining special (privileged) status of the white race.The charge is far-fetched. The news of the
butchering of the Chinese student Jun Lin by his boyfriend Luka Magnotta in
Toronto was bigger news in China than elsewhere not because of a “yellow
privilege” but simply because he was Chinese so they were more interested than
they would be if he was, say, Indian. But if Mr.Fatah wants to hear some really sorry tales
of indignities that the non-Chinese suffer say in Hong Kong all he has to ask.
It starts in restaurants, where the gwai-lo’s (faceless devils, as the whiteys are called there) will be served
out of turn. I think Mr. Fatah makes the
classical mistake of reading the natural human propensity to favour members of
their own family, clan, nation, race over outsiders of these groups as evidence
of discrimination, and with respect to the last of these, as a member of a racial
minority in a very hospitable country like Canada falsely equates with some
specific social “ill” which he chooses to call white privilege. Yes of
course, we all have some horrifically banal tales of discrimination but some of us just
have built a natural thick skin against it and would not dream creating
political issues out of it. Especially, since in the bigger picture, these are
minor irritants. I remember working at
the Department of Health in the 1990’s where charges of nepotism were regularly
raised against this or that group. Indeed it defies logic that say one large
family from Punjab would produce five biologists (or 55.6% of the senior researchers
in the division) specializing in water pollutants capable winning a fair
competition against all other applicants from all other ethnic groups in the cultural mosaic of Canada .
Especially since three of them were not even biologists.This was corrected eventually when complaints
piled up, but all the same. Nepotism exists and doubtless some of it will enrage people
trained to see injustices only to
their own kind. They will look for causes which are simply not there.

I also find interesting the rationale that the columnist
invents for the existence of this noxious phenom of white privilege. He says, it
is not the fault of the person born white. It is the product in part of what he calls white
accomplishment.It goes like this: from Socrates to Thomas Payne, the Wright brothers to the Nobel
Foundation, our contemporary civilization, undoubtedly has a (white) European
foundation. Thank you very much, I think I am speaking for all us white folks when I say we are flattered to death.But wait a sec ! Could it not just happened that the cultural
genus of a rational organization of society opened up in the Greco-Roman
Mediterranean. No ? It did not happen because the people there were white. Or did it ? Actually, if the racially obsessed
feels the content of melatonin in one’s skin is a measure of cultural and scientific
accomplishment, then the darker Europeans would be closer to madam Blavatsky’s Aryan
stock of India than to the paleface of the Franks, Teutons and Vikings.No-one of any intellectual weight claims, or
has ever claimed, in this white
privileged Europe (or America), that the superiority of this culture is due
to the race of its practitioners. And strange as it may sound it is because
reason has no colour (or for that matter, gender) identity. Indeed, it is by no accident that the white European age of Enlightment’s
first work of note, Montesquieu’s Lettres
persanes happened to be a biting satire of the excessive cultural
self-approbation. Interesting that the genius chose the backward Persians to pillory the French
for their lack of enlightened governance, eg. Usbek’s appraisal of the French
king: The king of France is an old man.
We have no instance in our history of a monarch that has reigned so long. They
say he possesses to an extraordinary degree the talent of making himself
obeyed. He governs with the same ability his family, his court, his state. He
has often been heard to say that of all the governments of the world, that of
the Turks or that of our own August sultan pleased him most, so greatly he
affected the oriental style of politics. So, there is no white privilege as far as I am
concerned and to look for it one will have to blind oneself to the obvious:
such terminus technicus is around
only to assert that other races deserve to be more privileged than the
paleface.One only needs to take a look at
the affirmative practices of the federal and provincial governments (graphically conveyed in the pictures above) to get the idea who and what purpose the scheme serves. In the communist country I grew up in, they called it nomenclatura. Of course, it was not racial but class identity, but if you think the the commissars intended to remove discrimination by way of preferential policy to certain social segments, you are simply wrong. They only wanted to reverse it!